Stalins annexation were not ignored by the west. Fighting against Germany was enough for Britain and France. After all they remembered 1914-18. Both countries made attempts to provide an alliance similar to 1914 with Russia.

Both Britain and France supplied equipment to the Finnish in the Winter War against Russia.

Germany wanted and started a war of aggression. You could argue that the people of Germany didnt want a war, the reaction of 1914 may not have been repeated, but there was support.

Germany waged a war aggression with racist overtones. It seems hard to argue that Germany was not an aggressive racist state during world war 2.

I do not want to be mean, and I like you guys, but this is just crap. You are refuting your own argument in the same damn sentence. "Germany wanted and started a war of aggression", you say. The British (who literally forced the French government to respond) declared war because they had offered the Polish government a blanket guarantee against Germany -- the first time in modern history that the British government did so.

This has nothing to do with (1) strategy, (2) morality, or even (3) international diplomacy. Chamberlain was forced to respond to the increasing militancy of the British public against Germans. Wow. Nuttin' new here.

That the British did not punish Stalin for his invasions comes as no surprise. The British governent did not give a rat's ass for Finland or whatever. Poland only mattered because germany invaded. Canada could have landed marines and the world would have chuckled.

We learn in school that Hitler was militant and he sent troops into the Rhineland -- his own damn country! Or Austria!

What about all the other invasions of the 1930s. That we actually learn about the Rhineland is farcical. The Japanese invasions of China, or Italy in Africa, or the US in Central American. NO, we concentrate on the German "invasion" of their own damn country.

Ollie Garchy

March 18th, 2006

Reiben

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ollie Garchy

I do not want to be mean, and I like you guys, but this is just crap. You are refuting your own argument in the same damn sentence. "Germany wanted and started a war of aggression", you say. The British (who literally forced the French government to respond) declared war because they had offered the Polish government a blanket guarantee against Germany -- the first time in modern history that the British government did so.

This has nothing to do with (1) strategy, (2) morality, or even (3) international diplomacy. Chamberlain was forced to respond to the increasing militancy of the British public against Germans. Wow. Nuttin' new here.

That the British did not punish Stalin for his invasions comes as no surprise. The British governent did not give a rat's ass for Finland or whatever. Poland only mattered because germany invaded. Canada could have landed marines and the world would have chuckled.

We learn in school that Hitler was militant and he sent troops into the Rhineland -- his own damn country! Or Austria!

What about all the other invasions of the 1930s. That we actually learn about the Rhineland is farcical. The Japanese invasions of China, or Italy in Africa, or the US in Central American. NO, we concentrate on the German "invasion" of their own damn country.

Ollie Garchy

So if I understand you correct it was the British actions that forced the war? Its a rather simplistic case. I accept the point about the guarantee for Poland. German actions had becoming increasingly aggressive. Munich, then the annexation of czechoslovakia, the invasion of Poland lead to someone drawing a line in the sand.

I didnt mention the Rhineland. The militarisation of the Rhineland was against the treaty. A treaty which is still causing problems throughout the world. The annexation of czechoslovakia is the more important evet, especially after Munich, Hitler said he had no more territorial demands, which we know wasnt true.

The point is surely that the western democaries followed a line of appeasement in the 1930s. Allowing Germany and Japan to bully and wage war.

March 18th, 2006

Ollie Garchy

The point is that Britain sought war. Period. That is why "WWII" resulted. That is my point. If no declaration of war by Britain, no WWII. It is that simple.

The British declaration of war was not an automatic result of Nazi actions. Other countries invaded other countries. Nobody cared. In this case, the British government cared. They technically hold responsibility. They started WWII.

The Soviets invaded Poland at the same time. No penalties for them. You CANNOT argue that Poland was the issue.

The Rhineland is an example. Teachers inform their students about the Rhineland as if it were criminal. Simultaneously, the rest of the world was involved in wars of expansion. (Japan, USA, Italy, etc.) You have to start thinking that Germans are treated differently from the rest of mankind. They can do nothing. The rest of the planet can rape and plunder at will. Great scholarship. Great morality.

--

March 18th, 2006

redcoat

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ollie Garchy

The point is that Britain sought war. Period. That is why "WWII" resulted. That is my point. If no declaration of war by Britain, no WWII. It is that simple.

Germany had already started a war with its invasion of Poland, Britains declaration merely widened it.

Quote:

The British declaration of war was not an automatic result of Nazi actions. Other countries invaded other countries. Nobody cared. In this case, the British government cared. They technically hold responsibility. They started WWII.

No Germany did.
They invaded a country, with the full knowledge of the guarantee that Britain and France had given to it

Quote:

The Soviets invaded Poland at the same time. No penalties for them. You CANNOT argue that Poland was the issue.

No. The Soviets invaded two weeks after Britain and France had declared war on Germany.
The reason the british and french didn't declare war on the Soviet Union is quite simple. They had been forced into a war they didn't want by Germany, they knew they would have enough difficulty beating Germany without taking on the Soviet Union as well.
As an American president once said " One war at a time, gentlemen please"

March 19th, 2006

Missileer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ollie Garchy

The point is simple: Why declare Hitler evil when you act the same way!

The list of evil people is as long as the road to hell, I just put Hitler at the top.

March 20th, 2006

Ted

Quote:

The point is that Britain sought war. Period. That is why "WWII" resulted. That is my point. If no declaration of war by Britain, no WWII. It is that simple.

This is one of the strangest versions I have heard regarding the start of WWII. If England wouldn't have done anything about Poland, do you really think that would be the end of it? I mean Fall Gelb was already planned so was the invasion of Norway and many France. Germany was on the war-path and it was a question of time before England would respond.
We could also turn it around. If Germany would have invaded Poland, do you think England would have declared war?...... I don't think so, do you?

March 20th, 2006

Reiben

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ollie Garchy

The point is that Britain sought war. Period. That is why "WWII" resulted. That is my point. If no declaration of war by Britain, no WWII. It is that simple.

Germany invaded Poland on September 1st. Britain and France declared war on September 3rd. The declaration by Britain and France widened the war. If the hadnt stood by Poland (and sorry if your Polish, seemed to stand and watch) the war wouldnt have occured then, but it would have done at another time.

I hope your not saying its ok to invade Poland.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ollie Garchy

The British declaration of war was not an automatic result of Nazi actions. Other countries invaded other countries. Nobody cared. In this case, the British government cared. They technically hold responsibility. They started WWII.

I think the French had free will. You do them a diservice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ollie Garchy

The Soviets invaded Poland at the same time. No penalties for them. You CANNOT argue that Poland was the issue.

The Germans had defeated the Polish by them. The fighting carried on, but the Polish had no chance of victory. It doesnt make what the Russians did right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ollie Garchy

The Rhineland is an example. Teachers inform their students about the Rhineland as if it were criminal. Simultaneously, the rest of the world was involved in wars of expansion. (Japan, USA, Italy, etc.) You have to start thinking that Germans are treated differently from the rest of mankind. They can do nothing. The rest of the planet can rape and plunder at will. Great scholarship. Great morality.

Surely this is a wider point, that you are making that the Germans were victims.

Germany was an aggressor! Who carried out some of the biggest crimes in history.

Japan was also an aggressor and committed war crimes. Japan was occupied for a long period, as was Germany.

Perhaps the difference was in the nature of the unwinding of the alliance against Germany and Japan. Japan being defeated after Germany and the desire to exclude Russia from Japan. For the west the enemy became Communism following the defeat of fascism.

March 21st, 2006

Doppleganger

One of the major questions that has to be asked is this.

What was the real reason for Great Britain and France guarenteeing the independence of Poland?

And following on from this.

What would have been Great Britain and France's response had the Soviet Union invaded Poland first?

March 21st, 2006

Ted

I think that the UK especially, worried about Germany's industrial capacity. In the haydays of Imperialism you couldn't afford to become a back-benchers. Of course I don't know if this played a role, but I can't imagine it didn't. But also the British view on Germanies expansion became more and more critical. If Chamberlain would not stiffen his back and chin-up he would be politically unmaintainable. The Brits had learned their lesson well after the Munich debacle....
I (personally) think that the UK and France wouldn't have done anything if Russia had invaded Poland. Actually it would make for a "good" or "well balanced" geopolitical situation. Germany would be on their toe's and the UK and France could just sit by and watch how the two superpowers would grind themselves down. Of course this is pure speculative on my account, but it sounds logical to me.

March 21st, 2006

Reiben

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

One of the major questions that has to be asked is this.

What was the real reason for Great Britain and France guarenteeing the independence of Poland?

And following on from this.

What would have been Great Britain and France's response had the Soviet Union invaded Poland first?

What was the terms of the guarantee? Was it specific to an aggressor ie Germany?